Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Oral corrective feedback (OCF) has emerged as a focal point of research in the realm of English language teaching and learning. However, the relationship between EFL teachers’ and students’ beliefs about OCF has not been thoroughly explored yet. Furthermore, it remains largely unclear whether EFL students at different proficiency levels viewed OCF differently. Thus, this study aims to fill these gaps by examining both EFL students’ and teachers’ OCF beliefs across four dimensions encompassing feedback efficacy, feedback timing, error types, and feedback types as well as investigating the influence of students’ proficiency levels on their OCF beliefs. The participants involved 248 EFL undergraduates at higher and lower proficiency levels and 20 EFL teachers at a Vietnamese university. Via validated questionnaires (for students only) and semi-structured interviews (for both students and teachers), it was found that both groups perceived OCF positively and had a desire for delayed feedback. These educational stakeholders also emphasized the importance of the corrections of major errors in speeches or those that hinder communication. For feedback types, although teachers and students leaned more toward implicit feedback, they also valued explicit feedback. Moreover, there were no significant differences in the four aspects of OCF beliefs between high-proficiency and low-proficiency students. The findings entail several implications for pedagogy in OCF practices and the expansion of this research domain.

Plain Language Summary

Beliefs of EFL Students and Teachers About Oral Error Corrections and How Students’ English Levels Affect Their Beliefs

Research on oral error correction in English learning has become important, but we still do not fully understand how teachers’ and students’ views on this topic compare. It is also unclear if students at different English levels see these corrections in the same way. This study aims to explore these gaps by looking at four aspects of correcting mistakes: how effective it is, the types used, when corrections are given, and what types of mistakes are corrected. The study involved 248 university students in Vietnam, both with higher and lower English levels, and 20 English teachers. Through the use of surveys and interviews, it found that both teachers and students valued oral error corrections and preferred getting feedback after the conversation (delayed feedback). They also agreed that correcting major errors is important. Both groups preferred indirect forms of feedback. There was no significant link between students’ English levels and their views on oral error corrections. These results have important implications for teaching and future research in this area.

Keywords

OCF beliefs proficiency levels EFL feedback students teachers

Introduction

Corrective feedback is considered an effective tool to help students identify their errors and thereby promote their linguistic development (Sakiroglu, 2020; Uysal & Aydin, 2017; Wang et al., 2018; Yu, 2024). It includes two main types: written corrective feedback (WCF) and oral corrective feedback (OCF). While the former has been researched widely, especially in the second language (L2) setting, over the past three decades (see Crosthwaite et al., 2022; Nguyen et al., 2024; Yu, 2024), the latter has received considerably less attention from scholars (Ha, Murray, et al., 2021). Since OCF plays a pivotal role in language learning (Irfani & O’Boyle, 2024; Li & Vouno, 2019), further research on this area is needed.

Indeed, OCF, which refers to teachers’ oral responses to learners’ errors in spoken tasks, has gained an increasing attention linguists and educators (e.g., Brown, 2016; Ha & Murray, 2023). This is probably due to its salient role in promoting L2 development (e.g., Ha, 2017; Irfani & O’Boyle, 2024). A meta-analysis by Li and Vouno (2019) reveals that OCF has a positive impact on L2 learning, with medium to large effect sizes. However, most studies on OCF primarily focused on its efficacy (e.g., Li & Vouno, 2019; Lyster & Saito, 2010; Nassaji, 2017) or either teachers’ (Ha & Murray, 2023; Uludağ, 2024) or students’ perceptions (e.g., Duklim, 2023; Leontjev, 2016; Zhu & Wang, 2019) alone; scholarship on the relationship between teachers’ and learners’ OCF beliefs is still underexplored (Ha, Murray, et al., 2021; Ye & Hu, 2024). The scarcity in this research line highlights the need for further studies as it is pivotal for teachers to “find out about their students’ beliefs, to help their students become aware of and to evaluate their own beliefs and to address any mismatch between their and their students’ belief systems” (Ellis, 2008, p. 24). Incongruence between these two key agents’ OCF beliefs can have a negative impact on language learning (Roothooft & Breeze, 2016). Thus, delving into the (mis)alignment is crucial for L2 development (Bui & Vo, 2024; Irfani & O’Boyle, 2024), especially since this domain is still underexplored (Ye & Hu, 2024).

Previous research on L2 teachers’ and students’ OCF beliefs mainly revolved around four key areas including feedback efficacy, feedback type, feedback timing, and error types. Nevertheless, such works did not consider the role of learners’ L2 proficiency, which may play a role in OCF beliefs (Ha, Nguyen, et al., 2021). Furthermore, research on OCF beliefs in the Vietnamese context is relatively limited. Ha, Murray, et al. (2021; Ha, Nguyen, et al., 2021) attempted to explore this topic, yet their focus was on English as a Foreign Language (EFL) secondary students, not on the demographic of learners in higher education. Thus, further investigation into OCF beliefs at tertiary levels in Vietnam is warranted, given that OCF beliefs have been demonstrated to be contextually sensitive (Bui & Vo, 2024; Ha, Murray, et al., 2021). To address these gaps, the current study aims to explore the (in)congruencies between Vietnamese EFL teachers’ and students’ beliefs about OCF in terms of efficacy, type, timing, and error types, taking learners’ L2 proficiency into consideration. Such an investigation is crucial as it offers deeper insights into how teachers can adapt their oral corrective feedback (OCF) to align with diverse student preferences, thereby enhancing the effectiveness of feedback delivery in L2 classrooms.

Literature Review

Theoretical Frameworks

The use of OCF can be framed within both cognitive-interactionist and sociocultural theories. From a cognitive-interactionist lens, Swain’s (1985) Output Hypothesis postulates that through producing output, learners are able to identify their knowledge gaps or holes, motivating them to search for ways to convey their intended message. At this point, teachers’ OCF functions as comprehensible input that helps learners resolve their previous issues. Via repeated noticing, hypothesis testing, and metalinguistic processing, learners can understand the connection between form and meaning (Swain, 2000), which may lead to L2 development. The Output Hypothesis (Swain, 1985) is further supported by Schmidt’s (1990, 2001) Noticing Hypothesis, which articulates that noticing (of problems or new linguistic features) facilitates language gains. Additionally, Long’s (1991) Interaction Hypothesis claims that negative feedback occurring during interaction (here being in the form of OCF) fosters the development of L2, “at least for vocabulary, morphology, and language-specific syntax, and essential for learning” (Long, 1996, p. 414).

From the sociocultural theory (SCT), drawing on the work of Vygotsky (1978), learning is considered as socially situated. SCT consists of three main tenets: an activity, mediation, and Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) (Storch, 2018). During communicative tasks in L2 classrooms (an activity), teachers (or peers) provide students with scaffolded assistance (mediating tool–OCF) to help them realize their errors and achieve their communication. Notably, this scaffolded support should be placed within a learner’s ZPD, referred to as “the distance between the actual developmental level as determined by independent problem solving and the level of potential development as determined through problem solving under adult guidance or in collaboration with more capable peers” (Vygotsky, 1978, p. 86) for learning gains to occur. Via the appropriate help of teachers (more competent users of L2), students can overcome their problems and transfer their intended message more effectively, contributing to their interlanguage development. However, different students have diverse ZPD, and even the same learner may have different ZPD for different features of L2 (Aljaafreh & Lantolf, 1994). This is probably the reason why OCF is contextually sensitive (Bui & Vo, 2024) and influenced by individual factors (Gass & Lewis, 2007). Thus, taking context and both teachers’ and learners’ beliefs (individual aspects), as the current study intends to do, is essential in exploring OCF.

Taxonomies of OCF

OCF has been categorized in various ways by different scholars. Ellis et al. (2006) grouped OCF into two types including implicit and explicit feedback. The former refers to the absence of obvious indicators of errors made whereas the latter alludes to apparent signals of errors. However, Lyster and Ranta (1997) established six principal types of OCF, comprising explicit corrections, recasts, clarification requests, elicitations, repetitions, and metalinguistic feedback. Explicit corrections pertain to students’ errors which are detected and corrected by the teachers who clearly introduce the correct form. Recasts involve the teacher’s repetition of what students have said, while clarification requests indicate the teacher’s requirement for the explanation of utterances which are confusing or inaccurate. Metalinguistic feedback contains the teacher’s comment, information, or questions to help students correct errors themselves instead of explicitly providing the accurate form. Comments such as “Can you find your error?” are used to help students raise awareness of their errors. Elicitations refer to the teacher’s expectation for students’ completion of their utterance via hint provision. Repetitions point to the teacher’s repetition of students’ incorrect utterance but with signals such as raising intonation to emphasize the error.

Based on the classifications of Ellis et al. (2006) and Luster and Ranta (1997), Sheen and Ellis (2011) attempted to divided OCF into two major tenets: implicit (recasts, repetitions, and clarifications) and explicit (explicit corrections, metalinguistic cues, and elicitations) feedback. Examples of this taxonomy are illustrated in Table 1.

Table 1.

Examples of OCF Taxonomy (based on Sheen & Ellis, 2011).

Implicit	Explicit
Clarification requests:	Metalinguistic clues
Student: She have books.	Student: She have books.
Teacher: Pardon?	Teacher: With the simple present tense, the subjects including he, she, it, singular nouns go with singular verbs.
Recasts	Elicitations
Student: She have books.	Student: She have books.
Teacher: You should say she has books.	Teacher: With the simple present tense, the subjects including he, she, it, singular nouns go with singular verbs, so she…….
Repetitions	Explicit corrections
Student: She have books.	Student: She have books.
Teacher: She have books?	Teacher: With the simple present tense, the subjects including he, she, it, singular nouns go with singular verbs, so the correct sentence is “She has books.”

Empirical Research on L2 Students’ and Teachers’ Beliefs About OCF

Albeit relatively limited (Ye & Hu, 2024), research probing into the relationship between L2 students’ and teachers’ OCF beliefs has been on a steady growth. The following sections delineate the (mis)alignment between the two agents’ beliefs about OCF across four categories encompassing feedback efficacy, timing, error types, and feedback types.

OCF’s Efficacy

In general, research has shown that both students, across various ages, language proficiency levels, or educational backgrounds, and their teachers share positive thoughts about OCF (e.g., Ha, Murray, et al., 2021; Ha, Nguyen, et al., 2021; Ye & Hu, 2024; Zare et al., 2022; L. J. Zhang & Rahimi, 2014). Regarding students’ beliefs, a large-scale study by Zhu and Wang (2019) involving 2670 Chinese students in different tertiary educational establishments showed that EFL students were willing to be orally corrected no matter how proficient they were. This is because they held a belief that OCF contributed to their improvements. In the same vein, Zare et al. (2022) explored how 60 Iranian female students (aged 11–22 at an English institute with various proficiency levels) perceived OCF efficacy. It was found that students at all examined proficiency levels “liked their errors to be corrected” (p.15) because the correction practices could lead to effective learning.

Teachers’ beliefs about OCF exhibit a similar landscape as they view this kind of feedback positively (e.g., Ha, Nguyen, et al., 2021; Nhac, 2022; Ye & Hu, 2024). For example, Nhac (2022) reported that teachers considered OCF crucial for the improvement of language accuracy. Similarly, a recent study by Ye and Hu (2024) also demonstrated that 87 Chinese EFL teachers at junior secondary schools emphasized the importance of OCF in language learning. Despite such positivity, there have been some concerns among teachers that OCF may impede students’ fluency while triggering these learners’ anxiety (Kartchava et al., 2020; Roothooft & Breeze, 2016).

These findings highlight the salience of OCF in L2 classrooms; however, only a few (e.g., Nhac, 2022; Ye & Hu, 2024) have attempted to directly examine students’ and teachers’ beliefs. Therefore, further investigation is warranted.

OCF Timing

There are two primary types of OCF timing: immediate and delayed feedback (Li et al., 2016). While the former takes place right when students make mistakes, the latter encompasses four scenarios: (i) feedback after students finish a sentence, (ii) feedback after students finish talking, (iii) feedback after the activity, and (iv) feedback at the end of the class (J. Zhang et al., 2022; L. J. Zhang & Rahimi, 2014; Zhu & Wang, 2019). Overall, findings in previous studies about students’ and teachers’ beliefs about OCF timing remain inconsistent.

Students’ preferences for OCF timing have been demonstrated to be mixed. On the one hand, many students were inclined to receive immediate feedback. The intermediate-level learners at different language institutes in Iran in L. J. Zhang and Rahimi’s (2014) study preferred to be corrected immediately. This preference aligns with the choices made by Chinese EFL students in Zhu and Wang’s (2019) study and even younger learners, specifically secondary school Vietnamese students in Ha, Nguyen, et al.’s (2021). These participants indicated that immediate OCF was more effective than delayed feedback due to its benefits in memory retention and comprehension support. On the other hand, findings from a study conducted by Sakiroglu (2020) on English-major students in a Turkish university revealed that students preferred delayed OCF. A few students even pointed out that they wanted to be corrected privately when the class was over. Similarly, English-major students in Nhac’s (2022) study leaned toward delayed correction, elaborating that when teachers provided feedback at the end of the oral activity or at the end of the class, they would be able to “recognize, remember and avoid committing errors” (p. 1650). They also shared that immediate corrections would interrupt their efforts, which were compatible with teachers’ concerns about fluency mentioned earlier. This finding was supported by a recent study by Ye and Hu (2024), highlighting students’ choice of delayed feedback.

Concerning teachers, they were found to show a strong desire for delayed OCF. For example, in their study, Ha, Nguyen, et al. (2021) observed that Vietnamese EFL teachers at a secondary school tended to correct errors at the end of their students’ speaking or when the speaking activity was completed. Similarly, the teachers in the study by Nhac (2022) would wait until the end of the class for OCF provision. The teachers in both studies claimed that they preferred delayed OCF because immediate feedback could demotivate students and make them afraid of speaking in front of the class. These findings were corroborated by subsequent studies (e.g., Ha, 2022a).

Taken together, it can be inferred that there was partial misalignment between students’ and teachers’ preferences for OCF timing. However, most of these studies did not either take students’ proficiency levels into consideration or perform direct comparisons between students’ and teachers’ beliefs, which necessitates further research.

Feedback Types

As illustrated earlier in Table 1, feedback has been categorized into six types encompassing recasts, repetitions, clarifications, explicit corrections, metalinguistic cues, and elicitations (Sheen & Ellis, 2011). Prior research indicates that students had a quite consistent preference for explicit corrections (Al-Faki & Siddiek, 2013; Bao & Wang, 2023; Muslem et al., 2021; Tarigan et al., 2023 J. Zhang et al., 2022; L. J. Zhang & Rahimi, 2014;). Specifically, the study by Muslem et al. (2021) showed that a group of students including high and low achieving learners favored receiving explicit feedback since identifying the mistake and recalling the correct form was straightforward. In the same vein, repetitions and elicitations were favored by many students (Al-Faki & Siddiek, 2013; Ananda et al., 2017; Ha, Nguyen, et al., 2021; J. Zhang et al., 2022; Zhu & Wang, 2019). For instance, Ananda et al. (2017) found that students showed a preference for repetitions (65%), followed by elicitations (56%).

Nonetheless, students’ beliefs regarding other types of OCF varied. As for clarification requests, while university students favored this type of feedback (Ananda et al., 2017; Bao & Wang, 2023; Muslem et al., 2021; Zhu & Wang, 2019), secondary and high school learners exhibited a dispreference for this kind (Al-Faki & Siddiek, 2013; Ha, Nguyen, et al., 2021) as it caused confusion and worries in students (Ha, Nguyen, et al., 2021). Similarly, preferences for metalinguistic feedback were also mixed. Whereas Nhac (2022) and Zhang et al. (2022) concluded that students showed a strong preference for explicit and metalinguistic feedback, the participants in the study of Muslem et al. (2021) did not favor this type since they felt that teachers did not respect them or underestimated their ability to understand the material. There have also been mixed attitudes toward recasts. While many students showed enthusiasm for this type (Al-Faki & Siddiek, 2013; Bao & Wang, 2023; Ha, Nguyen, et al., 2021; Nhac, 2022; Zhu & Wang, 2019), others (Ananda et al., 201; Muslem et al., 2021) did not favor it. To illustrate, Muslem et al. (2021) explained that students expressed a dislike for recasts because teachers consistently provided the correct answers without helping students notice their own errors.

Regarding teachers’ preferences, the findings in previous studies also demonstrate considerable disparities. On the one hand, many teachers tended to choose recasts and prompt strategies (Al-Faki and Siddiek, 2013; Argüelles et al., 2019; Ha, Nguyen, et al., 2021; Ha, 2022a; Ha & Murray, 2023; Tarigan et al., 2023). For example, a qualitative case study of Argüelles et al. (2019) reported that some implicit strategies such as recasts were seen more positively by university teachers than explicit ones. This is because recasts enabled teachers to correct students’ errors immediately without hurting students’ feelings (Argüelles et al., 2019). Ha, Nguyen, et al. (2021) also explained that recasts helped teachers correct students’ errors quickly and easily. On the other hand, other teachers had a tendency to use more explicit corrections to correct learners’ errors (Ha & Murray, 2023; Tarigan et al., 2023). One possible reason is that the teachers in Ha and Murray (2023) worked with children at primary school. The learners were probably too young to process implicit feedback which is more cognitively demanding.

In brief, there are still mixed findings about students’ and teachers’ preferences for OCF types. Generally, it can be inferred that students are more likely to favor explicit feedback whereas teachers tend to provide implicit feedback. However, whether EFL students at different proficiency levels may perceive OCF types differently or not remains largely unclear. A recent study by Ye and Hu (2024) attempted to tap into this topic and reported that while low-achieving learners preferred explicit feedback, high-achieving counterparts opt for implicit feedback. Prominent as this study (Ye & Hu, 2024) is, it did not explore the specific types of OCF, which required more investigations.

Error Types

Prior research has indicated that students preferred all or most of the errors to be rectified (Muslem et al., 2021; Zhu & Wang, 2019), whether they were phonological, grammatical, morphosyntactic (Muslem et al., 2021), pragmatic, or lexical errors (Zhu & Wang, 2019). This could be because students wanted to avoid error fossilization (Weekly et al., 2022). Correcting all errors is particularly favored by high-achieving learners who had to take high-stakes examinations (Ye & Hu, 2024). However, some students only expected their teachers to pay attention to serious and frequent problems which might hinder understanding (Argüelles et al., 2019; Nhac, 2022; J. Zhang et al., 2022; L. J. Zhang & Rahimi, 2014). The reason can be attributed to the time-consuming and demotivating nature of all-error corrections (Nhac, 2022).

As for teachers, they often focused on errors which could impede communication (Argüelles et al., 2019; Bao & Wang, 2023; Ha, 2022a; Ha & Murray, 2023). Teachers favored selective error corrections possible because of several constraints such as limited time, large class sizes, exam preparation, and learner anxiety (Ha, Nguyen, et al., 2021). Nevertheless, this also depends on the focus of the lessons. For instance, teachers were found to be more likely to rectify grammar errors in grammar lessons (Ha, 2022a).

Taken together, it is apparent that there are misalignments between students’ and teachers’ preferences for error types to be corrected. Nonetheless, the attitudes of students at various proficiency levels toward error corrections in OCF remain underexplored. Thus, more research is necessitated.

The Present Study

The literature review has analyzed several gaps in previous OFC studies. First, most prior research centered on a specific cohort of participants’ beliefs, either teachers (Al-Faki & Siddiek, 2013; Argüelles et al., 2019; Ha, 2017, 2022a; Ha & Murray, 2023) or students (Duklim, 2023; Zare et al., 2022; L. J. Zhang & Rahimi, 2014; Zhu & Wang, 2019). Only a handful of studies attempted to compare the perspectives of teachers and students on OCF (e.g., Nhac, 2022; Ye & Hu, 2024). Second, there has been a paucity in research delving into the roles of students’ proficiency levels in their OCF beliefs in terms of feedback efficacy, timing, types, and error types. Third, the majority of research employed questionnaires to measure participants’ perceptions, but most of these tools were not validated via the use of Exploratory Factor Analysis. Finally, research on OCF beliefs and students’ proficiency levels in the Vietnamese context was still limited. Given the important roles of teacher-student belief congruence (Ellis, 2008), language proficiency (Ha, Murray, et al., 2021), and context in OCF (Bui & Vo, 2024), further research is needed to address these issues.

To fill these gaps, the present study aims to explore the OCF beliefs held by Vietnamese EFL students at different English proficiency levels as well as their teachers. Therefore, it seeks answers to the following research questions:

Do Vietnamese EFL learners and their teachers view OCF differently in terms of feedback efficacy, timing, error types, and feedback types?

Do Vietnamese EFL learners at varying proficiency levels view OCF differently in terms of feedback efficacy, timing, error types, and feedback types?

The present study holds significant value in addressing the limited research on OCF preferences, contributing to the existing literature by filling a critical gap in understanding both learner and teacher perspectives. Furthermore, it may help teachers to adapt their OCF beliefs, and even practices, to better meet learners’ preferences. This alignment has the potential to enhance learning experiences, foster a positive classroom environment, and promote language development, thereby offering practical implications for improving L2 instruction. Additionally, it exhibits a validated questionnaire, ensuring more reliable and valid results that strengthen the credibility of the obtained findings.

Methodology

Research Design

This study employed an explanatory sequential mixed-methods research design to examine the perspectives of EFL students and teachers of OCF in speaking activities. The quantitative phase was conducted through a questionnaire for students, followed by the qualitative phase involving semi-structured interviews with both students and teachers. This mixed-methods approach allows researchers to enhance the reliability and validity of their data by mitigating the limitations inherent in using quantitative methods alone (e.g., limited depth of information) or qualitative methods alone (e.g., reduced objectivity) (Creswell & Creswell, 2018).

Educational Context and Participants

The current study was conducted at a private university in Vietnam where students were required to achieve a proficiency level of B2 (according to the CEFR) before pursuing their disciplinary training. English courses were offered to help students reach the target level. Speaking (oral communication, including fluency) was one of the major foci of these courses, capsulating various oral types such as class discussions, group presentations, role-plays, and debates. These activities were designed to maximize practice opportunities for students to sharpen their speaking skills.

Participants included 248 students whose ages ranged from 19 to 27 (156 males and 92 females). They came from English classes of two different levels: higher (85) and lower (163) English proficiency levels (henceforth HP and LP, respectively), as determined by the school’s placement test. Apart from students, 11 teachers of the HP classes and 9 teachers of LP classes were also recruited. The teachers (5 males and 15 females in their 30s) all held a master’s degree in TESOL (Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages) with 8 to 12 years of teaching experience. All the participants joined the research on a voluntary basis and agreed to sign a written consent form. Their demographics were illustrated in Table 2.

Table 2.

Participants’ Demographics.

Participant	Gender	Age	Experience/proficiency	Educational level
Teachers	Males: 5 Females: 15	30 or more	8–12 years of experience	Master of TESOL
Students	Males: 156 Females: 92	19–27	HP: 85 LP: 163	Undergraduates

Instruments

There were two main instruments employed in the current study: questionnaires for students and semi-structured interviews for both students and teachers. The questionnaire included two parts: students’ background information and perspectives on OCF. The latter part adapted from the study by Ha, Nguyen, et al. (2021) comprised 27 five-point Likert-scale items elaborating the students’ viewpoints of OCF’s different aspects in EFL classrooms. As this study focused on teachers’ OCF, some items related to peer review were removed. To avoid language barriers and any possible misunderstanding for students, the questionnaire was written in Vietnamese. After being revised through multiple rounds of meetings and discussions between the authors and an expert with a Ph.D. degree in applied linguistics, the questionnaire was piloted with the participation of 50 other students with a similar profile to those of the target participants, which showed a satisfactory reliability and consistency (Cronbach’s a = .80) (Pallant, 2020). The final version of the questionnaire, besides the demographic part, included 27 items on different aspects of students’ OCF beliefs: (1) the efficacy of OCF (Q1–Q7), (2) timing of OCF (Q8–Q14), (3) error types (Q15–Q19), and (4) OCF types (Q20–Q27).

For qualitative data, the interviews were semi-structured and included five open-ended questions related to the main themes in the survey (beliefs of OCF regarding efficacy, timing, error types, and feedback types). Follow-up questions, where necessary, were raised to elaborate respondents’ perspectives for data enrichment. To ensure content validity, the questions were also reviewed by the mentioned expert before being piloted and modified accordingly by the researchers.

Data Collection Procedure

Initially, a pilot study was performed with 50 students having similar profiles to the participants of the main study to determine the language accuracy and feasibility of the questionnaire. Following the students’ concerns and feedback when completing the questionnaire, some terms and structures were modified to enhance the statements’ clarity. As for the full-scale research, 262 students completed the questionnaire, which was administered via Google Forms, at their convenience. Within 1 week, 248 complete responses were returned.

Following this, 20 HP students and 20 LP students were randomly invited to participate in one-on-one interviews conducted either online or in person as logistically allowed. The authors also conducted individual interviews with 11 teachers of the HP group and 9 teachers of the LP group, taking place face-to-face in a private room. Each interview, lasting about 30 min, was also audio recorded under the participants’ consent. To address language concerns, the authors decided to conduct all the interviews in Vietnamese to maximize understanding between the interviewers and interviewees (Cortazzi et al., 2011). The whole interview procedure was completed in 1 month.

Data Analysis

SPSS version 27.0 was used to analyze the data from the questionnaire. Cronbach’s alpha coefficient for the whole questionnaire was .893, indicating good internal consistency for the instruments (Pallant, 2020). Then, an exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was conducted to further examine the questionnaire’s validity. The results showed that all question items were correlated with each other. The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) statistic was .865 (>.50), ensuring the appropriateness of the exploratory factor analysis. Additionally, Bartlett’s test of sphericity yielded significant results (p < .001), confirming the correlations between variables. In communalities, variables’ extraction ranged from .517 to .722, making them strong data for EFA. With Kaiser’s criterion of eigenvalues greater than 1.0, seven factors were extracted, accounting for a total variance of 62.334%. The 27 variables were grouped into seven factors, namely efficacy (importance), immediate feedback timing, delayed feedback timing, major error correction, minor error correction, explicit feedback types, and implicit feedback types. Cronbach’s alpha values for the seven constructs of OCF indicated that the items were consistent with acceptable reliability (Pallant, 2020): efficacy (α = .883), immediate feedback timing (α = .724), delayed feedback timing (α = .642), major error correction (α = .656), minor error correction (α = .711), explicit feedback types (α = .804), and implicit feedback types (α = .650). These seven constructs were grouped into four categories: feedback efficacy, feedback timing (immediate and delayed), error types (major and minor), and feedback types (explicit and implicit). Following this, descriptive analysis with mean (M) and standard deviation (SD) was chosen to obtain information about students’ beliefs about OCF. As for comparisons between the HP and LP groups, inferential analysis inlcuding independent-samples t-tests was performed.

The analysis of qualitative data followed the model proposed by Creswell and Creswell (2018) (Figure 1). Particularly, recorded interview responses of both teachers and students were manually transcribed and sent back to the participants for accuracy confirmation. Key points were then highlighted and coded. After the coding step, the researchers compared the codes to identify common categories before putting them into themes. To ensure inter-rater reliability, the first and second researchers coded two transcripts together before working independently on 12 others (20%). The total agreement percentage between the two raters was 84.33%, indicating a substantial consensus (McHugh, 2012). Any discrepancies in the process were addressed through discussions between the two researchers before the second researcher coded the remaining of the interviews.

Figure 1.

Qualitative data analysis.

Results

Do Vietnamese EFL Learners and Their Teachers View OCF Differently in Terms of Feedback Efficacy, Timing, Error Types, and Feedback Types?

The results of the student questionnaires are interpreted following the guidelines of Nguyen and Vu (2024), based on Oxford and Burry-Stock (1995). Specifically, mean scores are considered as low if they are under 2.5, medium if they range from 2.5 to 3.49, and high if they are at 3.5 or higher.

Feedback Efficacy

In general, students had highly positive attitudes toward teachers’ OCF with the mean scores ranging from 3.88 to 4.46 (Table 3). The highest mean scores, 4.46 (SD = .77) and 4.36 (SD = .81) of Q1 and Q2, respectively, showed that students valued OCF and appreciated its importance to their English speaking.

Table 3.

Students’ Beliefs of OCF’s Efficacy.

Item	N	M	SD
Q1. Teachers’ OCF in speaking activities is important.	248	4.46	0.77
Q2. Teachers’ OCF helps me consolidate my English speaking.	248	4.36	0.81
Q3. If I make an error when speaking, I want my teacher to correct it.	248	4.30	0.91
Q4. If I make an error when I am answering my teacher’s question, I want my teacher to correct it.	248	4.28	0.87
Q5. If I make an error when I am presenting something to the whole class, I want my teacher to correct it.	248	4.09	0.99
Q6. If I make an error when I am talking in a group-work activity, I want my teacher to correct it.	248	3.88	1.00
Q7. If I make an error related to the focus of the lesson, my teacher should correct it.	248	4.18	0.88

In the interviews with 40 students, all of them agreed that teachers’ OCF was essential and emphasized its contribution to their improvement and accuracy. For example, student 5 stated “OCF is important since my teachers have knowledge and competence to pinpoint my errors, so I can increase the level of accuracy in my speeches.”

As for interviews with teachers, similar results were obtained. All instructors considered OCF helpful because this approach helped students know “their strengths and weaknesses” so that their learning could be improved. Teacher 1’s remark illustrated this finding, “OCF helps students to understand how their performances are assessed. It also helps students to improve their speaking, especially accuracy.”

Feedback Timing

Table 4 shows that both delayed and immediate feedback were chosen by the students, but there was a prevalent inclination toward delayed feedback, particularly with the highest figures for Q11 (M = 3.95, SD = .94) and Q13 (M = 3.82, SD = .92). This signifies an expectation among students for their instructors to allow them to finish their utterances and tasks before feedback was given. With slightly lower mean scores, students also expressed a desire for immediate corrections of errors impeding comprehension (Q9, M = 3.76, SD = 1.03), and for delayed corrections of minor errors at the end of the lessons (Q14, M = 3.68, SD = 1.05).

Table 4.

Students’ Beliefs of OCF’s Timing.

Item	N	M	SD
Q8. I want my teacher to correct me as soon as I make an error.	248	3.49	1.16
Q9. If I make an error which can interfere with my teachers’ or peer’s understanding, my teacher should correct it immediately.	248	3.76	1.03
Q10. If I make an error related to the grammar focus or the new vocabulary of the lesson, my teacher should correct it immediately.	248	3.55	1.09
Q11. My teacher should wait and correct my errors after I have finished speaking.	248	3.95	0.94
Q12. My teacher should note my error down and remember it then correct it in front of the class at the end of the lesson.	248	3.46	1.14
Q13. My teacher should wait until the end of the activity that I am involved in to correct my errors.	248	3.82	.92
Q14. If I make an error which is NOT important, my teacher should leave it and correct it later.	248	3.68	1.05

In the interviews, a majority of the students (36/40) articulated a preference for delayed feedback due to concerns that immediate correction could adversely affect their emotional state because of potential interruptions. The remark of student 10 illustrated this point:

I want to be corrected after my speaking turn so that I will not be interrupted and get confused. Only when I finish my ideas, teachers can know exactly whether I am correct or not to give feedback.

Nevertheless, a subset of students (11 out of 40) also considered immediate feedback to be acceptable when errors had the potential to lead to communication breakdowns. Student 6 confirmed this perspective:

If the errors are so serious that they can impede understanding among listeners, teachers should interrupt students and correct the errors.

Analyses of the teachers’ interview data also revealed that more than half (11/20) preferred delayed feedback. Their rationale was articulated with consensus, emphasizing that providing feedback while students were in the midst of speaking could exert adverse effects on emotional states, performance, fluency, and time management. Illustrative comments from the teachers underscored this perspective:

I wait until the students finish their speech to give OCF because interrupting them when they are speaking may affect their performance and confidence, and possibly cause negative feelings. (teacher 10)

The remaining number of the teachers (9/20) advocated for not only delayed feedback but also immediate feedback where errors could induce confusion or when a heightened emphasis on accuracy was prioritized. For example, teacher 4 said, “I usually correct errors that cause misunderstandings right away,” and teacher 5 commented, “Activities that prioritize accuracy will receive immediate feedback.”

Error Types

In Table 5, it is clear that major errors received greater attention than minor ones. Specifically, the question addressing the correction of common errors (Q15, M = 3.83, SD = .95) and errors related to lesson focus (Q16, M = 3.90, SD = .97) garnered the highest levels of agreement. With slightly lower mean values, there was a desire for teachers to focus on errors that did not impede understanding (Q17, M = 3.70, SD = .88), uncommon errors (Q18, M = 3.69, SD = .78), and errors not related to lesson focus (Q19, M = 3.55, SD = .87).

Table 5.

Students’ Beliefs of OCF’s Error Types.

Item	N	M	SD
Q15.The errors that students make frequently are the most important and worth correcting.	248	3.83	0.95
Q16. The errors related to the focus of the lesson are the most important and worth correcting.	248	3.90	0.97
Q17. Some errors do not impede communication, but it is necessary to correct them.	248	3.70	0.88
Q18. Some errors are not common in class, but when they occur, they need to be corrected.	248	3.69	0.78
Q19. Some errors are not related to the focus of the lesson, but they need to be corrected.	248	3.55	0.87

These beliefs were also reflected in the interviews. The majority of the students (30/40) emphasized the importance of rectifying errors that significantly affected message delivery. This finding is demonstrated in student 4’s sharing, “Vocabulary, grammar, and pronunciation errors need correction as they impact audience comprehension.” However, they believed that minor errors including minor grammatical ones could be overlooked. For instance, student 1 elucidated, “I believe some grammatical errors such as adding s or es to plural nouns can be overlooked as they do not significantly impact comprehension.” On the other hand, a quarter of the participants (10/40) expressed an expectation for comprehensive error correction to prevent the recurrence of mistakes. Student 10 emphasized, “I expect my teachers to rectify all errors to prevent repetitive mistakes because I want my language to be as correct as possible. When I go to work, I will not make mistakes.”

Regarding teachers, the majority (15/20) believed that serious and common errors, particularly in pronunciation, word choice, ideas, and organization, should be addressed. Teacher 5 noted, “OCF is essential for repeated student errors, as these may ultimately lead to language fossilization.” They also explained that minor errors and grammatical mistakes should not be highlighted, as the main messages were still comprehensible. Teacher 4 elucidated, “I tend to overlook errors that do not impede the meaning that students are attempting to convey, as the primary purpose of the speech is to aid listeners in understanding the intended information.” Additionally, selective errors were preferred because four teachers expressed worries that too many corrections could detriment students’ efforts, motivation, and fluency, as demonstrated below:

However, when teachers correct every error made by students, it can really demotivate students, especially low and shy students. Students can become hesitant in speaking. (teacher 7)

As for the remaining number of teachers, they expressed a flexible approach, contingent on the lesson’s focus. For instance, Teacher 2 remarked, “When teaching grammar or guiding students in English communication, I concentrate on the errors that are related to grammatical points or structures integral to the lesson.”

Feedback Types

The questionnaire’s results showed that students were generally inclined to implicit feedback. In Table 6, the mean scores of most questions were more than 3.50, expressing strong agreement among students. They preferred the integrated recasts the most when being corrected (Q25, M = 3.72, SD = .98), followed by explicit corrections (Q27, M = 3.70, SD = 1.05) and other recast types (Q23, M = 3.69, SD = .94 and Q24, M = 3.63, SD = 1.01).

Table 6.

Students’ Preferences for OCF Types.

Item	N	M	SD
Q20. If I make an error, I want my teacher to say my utterance again and pause before the error so that I can correct it by myself. (e.g., I…)	248	3.31	0.97
Q21. If I make an error, I want my teacher to repeat my erroneous utterance with a change in intonation so that I can recognize the error and correct it by myself, or my friends can correct it. (e.g., He go→Teacher: He GO?)	248	3.44	1.11
Q22. If I make an error, I want my teacher to ask me to say the utterance again. (e.g., Can you repeat it?)	248	3.52	0.99
Q23. If I make an error, I want my teacher to give me the correct form by repeating the whole utterance and reformulating the erroneous part. (e.g., He go to the train station yesterday→Teacher: He GOES to the train station.)	248	3.69	0.94
Q24. If I make an error, I want my teacher to give me the correct form by reformulating and repeating only the erroneous part of the utterance. (e.g., He go→Teacher: He GOES.)	248	3.63	1.01
Q25. If I make an error, I want my teacher to give me the correct form by reformulating the erroneous part and ask me another short question. (e.g., He go to the train station → Teacher: He went to the train station yesterday. Did he meet someone there?)	248	3.72	0.98
Q26. If I make an error, I want my teacher to reformulate the erroneous utterance and put it in the form of a confirmation check or a question (e.g., He go to the train station yesterday. → Teacher: Where did you say he went yesterday?)	248	3.59	0.96
Q27. If I make an error, I want my teacher to tell me explicitly that there is an error and give me the correct form. (e.g., Teacher: No, not “Go,” you should use “Went”).	248	3.70	1.05

In the interviews with 40 students, half answered that they preferred implicit feedback from their teachers because this feedback type allowed them to “recognize and correct their mistakes on their own” (student 8) and “review what they had learnt, understand the structure and therefore, they could remember the mistakes and the correct form longer” (student 15). Similarly, most teachers (15/20) endeavored to implicitly correct students’ errors before switching to explicit feedback. They argued that the former feedback type boosted self-recognition of errors, making students understand them and not commit the same mistakes in the future. Moreover, indirect OCF would not hurt students’ well-being. When correcting students’ errors, teachers frequently used clarification requests, metalinguistic cues, and repetitions, believing that these techniques could “elicit the errors in students’ utterances” (teacher 1).

The other half of the student interviewees opted for explicit feedback type as it “is not confusing, and it makes me easily see how my mistakes are corrected” (student 11). As for teachers (5/20), only when “students’ linguistic competence was low and could not recognize their own mistakes” (teacher 14) and “the class time was too limited” (teacher 7 and teacher 8), explicit feedback would be employed.

Do Vietnamese EFL Learners at Varying Proficiency Levels View OCF Differently in Terms of Feedback Efficacy, Timing, Error Types, and Feedback Types?

Tables 7 and 8 showed that HP and LP students had similar beliefs of OCF in terms of efficacy, timing, error types, and feedback types. Independent-samples t-tests revealed that the differences among the two groups were non-significant (all p values >.05). In other words, proficiency levels did not play a role in channeling students’ beliefs of OCF.

Table 7.

Descriptive Mean Scores of Two Proficiency Level Groups.

Dimension	Group	N	M	SD
Efficacy (E)	Low	163	4.24	0.78
	High	85	4.18	0.47
Timing (T)	Low	163	3.67	0.60
	High	85	3.66	0.42
Error types (ET)	Low	163	3.82	0.66
	High	85	3.74	0.49
Feedback types (FT)	Low	163	3.61	0.72
	High	85	3.48	0.51

Table 8.

Results for Independent Samples t-tests.

	Levene’s test for equality of variances		t-test for equality of means
Dimension	F	Sig.	t	df	Sig. (2-tailed)	Mean difference	Std. error difference	95% confidence interval of the difference [lower, upper]
E
Equal variances assumed	8.42	.004	0.637	246	.525	0.0586	.0920	[−0.1227, 0.2400]
Equal variances not assumed			0.738	240.710	.461	0.0586	.0794	[−0.0978, 0.21508]
T
Equal variances assumed	6.28	.013	0.151	246	.880	0.0110	.0731	[−0.1330, 0.1551]
Equal variances not assumed			0.168	224.049	.867	0.0110	.0658	[−0.1187, 0.1408]
ET
Equal variances assumed	2.32	.129	1.053	246	.294	0.0849	.0807	[−0.0740, 0.2440]
Equal variances not assumed			1.154	217.282	.250	0.0849	.0736	[−0.0602, 0.2302]
FT
Equal variances assumed	9.09	.003	1.502	246	.134	0.1313	.0874	[−0.0408, 0.3036]
Equal variances not assumed			1.668	223.540	.097	0.1313	.0787	[−0.0238, 0.2866]

Note. E = efficacy; T = timing; ET = error types; FT = feedback types.

Discussion

Do Vietnamese EFL Learners and Their Teachers View OCF Differently in Terms of Feedback Efficacy, Timing, Error Types, and Feedback Types?

Feedback Efficacy

It was found that there were considerable alignments between students’ and teachers’ beliefs in OCF’s significance and efficacy. Results from both the questionnaires and interviews revealed that OCF was necessary in English language teaching and learning for its positive impact on students’ improvement. This result is similar to the findings of Ha, Nguyen, et al. (2021), Zare et al. (2022), L. J. Zhang and Rahimi (2014), Zhu and Wang (2019), as well as Ye and Hu (2024), confirming that OCF is an indispensable part of foreign language learning and teaching, especially in the EFL context where these studies occurred. The cognitive-interactionist and sociocultural theories can provide support for the positive attitudes toward OCF efficacy. From a cognitive-interactionist perspective, OCF allowed students to realize their errors and aim to resolve these issues to achieve their communicative goals (Long, 1996; Swain, 1985). By noticing these errors, they were able to perform better in subsequent speaking tasks (Schmidt, 2001). From an SCT viewpoint (Storch, 2018; Vygotsky, 1978), teachers’ corrections were regarded as scaffolded assistance, helping learners to reach their potential ZPD and develop their interlanguage.

OCF Timing

Another notable finding lies in the preference for delayed feedback by both EFL students and teachers. Regarding students’ perspectives, they showed the most agreement for the statements that teachers should give them feedback after utterances and after the activities, at M = 3.95, and M = 3.82 respectively. Additionally, 36/40 student and 11/20 teacher interviewees favored delayed feedback in the interview since the learners’ speeches were not interrupted by their teachers’ comments. The findings were consistent with those by Ha, Nguyen, et al. (2021) and Nhac (2022) in which teachers advocated for delayed feedback to avoid adversely affecting students’ motivation and feelings. A recent study by Ye and Hu (2024) also demonstrated this congruence between students’ and teachers’ beliefs about delayed feedback.

However, the preferences of students in this study diverged from the immediate tendency reported by L. J. Zhang and Rahimi (2014) as well as Zhu and Wang (2019). One plausible explanation for this is that the current study’s participants (both non-English majors and English-major university students) leaned toward delay feedback because they tended to value fluency and intelligibility which played an important role in their courses’ speaking assessments. Meanwhile, the participants of the previous studies were non-English majors (L. J. Zhang & Rahimi, 2014; Zhu & Wang, 2019), and secondary school learners (Ha, Nguyen, et al., 2021) whose focus was placed on accuracy.

Error Types

A noteworthy outcome of the present study is the similarity between teachers’ and students’ preferences for error types. Both groups focused on addressing significant and recurring errors that had a substantial impact on comprehension. The statements associated with common errors garnered the most agreement (Q15 with M = 3.83, and Q16 with M = 3.90). The majority of the participants (30/40 students and 15/20 teachers) also preferred common and important errors that can hinder the intelligibility of utterances. There were two possible explanations for these results. First, students’ choice of error types, as reflected in previous studies (J. Zhang et al., 2022; L. J. Zhang & Rahimi, 2014), is consistent with their fluency-centeredness mentioned earlier. As for teachers, concerns about students’ being overwhelmed by too much feedback induced them to perform error corrections selectively, which is echoed in studies by Argüelles et al. (2019) as well as Ha and Murray (2023). Second, time-consumption might also be the reason why selective corrections were preferred by both groups (Nhac, 2022).

Nevertheless, some students expressed a different viewpoint from their teachers. In the current study, 10 student interviewees chose to have comprehensive corrections as they had a desire to deliver correct speeches and avoid as many mistakes as possible, which could be important for their future work performance. This preference is also recorded in the study by Zhu and Wang (2019), which reported that 69.3% of international students studying Chinese expected most or all errors to be corrected. High-stakes examinations (Ye & Hu, 2024) or fear of error fossilization (Weekly et al., 2022) may account for such a favor of corrections.

Feedback Types

Teachers’ and students’ preferences for feedback types parallel, reflected in both questionnaires and interviews. However, within each group, disparities were found. On the one hand, the two groups believed that indirect correction brought long-term educational benefits to students including knowledge consolidation and improvement. Teachers also added that implicit feedback did not embarrass students the way explicit feedback might. This finding does not align with Ha, Nguyen, et al. (2021)’s study results in which both teachers and students leaned toward explicit OCF. It is most likely that the learning context can influence participants’ partiality. At tertiary education (as in this present study), students would like to have a firm progress in language acquisition for their study and profession later, and teachers would like to assist learner autonomy and proactive approach by using prompts, questions, etc. rather than immediately giving correct forms. This is supported by other scholars’ studies which pointed out that teachers of secondary education usually provided feedback more explicitly than teachers of higher education (Ha & Murray, 2023; Tarigan et al., 2023).

On the other hand, half of the student participants in the current study also favored explicit corrections, which is in accordance with the findings previous studies such as Al-Faki and Siddiek (2013), Bao and Wang (2023); Ha, Nguyen, et al. (2021), Muslem et al. (2021), L. J. Zhang and Rahimi (2014), and J. Zhang et al. (2022). The reason behind this similarity lies in the explanation that explicit corrections were more straightforward and easier to understand for EFL students (Muslem et al., 2021). Regarding teachers, they also employed explicit corrections when students could not correct the errors or when time was limited. Although students and teachers opted for explicit corrections based on different grounds, this alignment suggests that this feedback technique should be maintained.

Do Vietnamese EFL Learners at Varying Proficiency Levels View OCF Differently in Terms of Feedback Efficacy, Timing, Error Types, and Feedback Types?

It was found that varying proficiency levels did not significantly affect students’ beliefs about OCF’s efficacy, timing, types, and error types. Specifically, all LP and HP students appreciated the OCF’s benefits to their understanding of their strengths and weaknesses, hence improving their speaking abilities. This result aligns with previous studies (Ha, Nguyen, et al., 2021; Zare et al., 2022; L. J. Zhang & Rahimi, 2014; Zhu & Wang, 2019). As defined by Ellis et al. (2006) and Lyster et al. (2013), OCF is used to improve students’ speeches by pointing out or correcting their mistakes. This is probably why it is appreciated by students regardless of their linguistics competence. As for timing, the preferences among LP and HP students gravitated toward delayed feedback. Similar to participants of Nhac (2022) and Sakiroglu (2020), the participants in the current study claimed immediate feedback could distract them and caused embarrassment.

Regarding error types, both LP and HP students asserted that instructors should prioritize addressing major and substantial errors that impeded comprehension. This finding parallels the conclusions drawn in the studies conducted by Muslem et al. (2021), Bao and Wang (2023), Nhac (2022), L. J. Zhang and Rahimi (2014), and J. Zhang et al. (2022) in which the main purpose of speaking is to deliver messages, meaning that minor errors which do not affect meaning can be overlooked. However, this result contrasts the study by Ye and Hu (2024) in which high-achieving learners preferred all errors to be corrected. The difference can be attributed to contextual factors; that is, the current study’s participants valued fluency while HP learners in Ye and Hu (2024) were exam-oriented, focusing on accuracy. Such a disparity underscores the importance of taking contexts into consideration when examining OCF (Bui & Vo, 2024).

In terms of feedback types, varying English proficiency levels do not influence students’ choice of OCF implicit types. This result contrasts the study by Muslem et al. (2021) in which high and low-achieving participants preferred explicit corrections for its straightforwardness and intelligibility. The discrepancy could be due to learners’ autonomy, highlighting the need to take individual factors into account (Gass & Lewis, 2007). The students in the current study may have higher autonomy than those in Muslem et al. (2021). However, as both studies did not examine learner autonomy, further research is warranted to shed greater light on this difference.

Overall, we found that students’ and teachers’ beliefs about OCF were consistent regarding the efficacy and timing of this approach. However, findings concerning feedback types and error types were only partially aligned. Therefore, teachers should adapt their feedback beliefs and practices in accordance with students’ expectations to help learners enhance their L2, as emphasized by Ellis (2008) and Bui and Vo (2024). Indeed, Ha (2022b) reported that Vietnamese EFL teachers changed their OCF strategies after being informed of their students’ beliefs, which could meet learners’ needs. Notably, feedback timing and types should not be viewed separately, but should be considered alongside error types because different types of errors could trigger different expectations for feedback timing and types. For example, Nhac (2022) found that delayed feedback was preferred by the participants but errors that impeded communication should be corrected immediately. Regarding students’ proficiency levels, although there were no significant differences obtained between HP and LP learners, this finding should be interpreted with caution. That is, similar beliefs might not necessarily mean that these expectations were correct. Instead, contextual (e.g., lesson focus, classroom size) and individual (e.g., learner autonomy, ages) factors should be taken into careful consideration (Bui & Vo, 2024; Gass & Lewis, 2007) when delivering OCF.

Pedagogical Implications

This study offers several important pedagogical implications for English language teaching and learning. First, since there are misalignments between teachers and students regarding preferences for feedback and error types, teachers are recommended to discover their students’ beliefs as soon as possible and try to modify their OCF delivery accordingly. This is because incongruence between students’ and teachers’ beliefs may result in negative impact on language learning (Roothooft & Breeze, 2016). Second, teachers should take students’ ZPD, which is crucial for their L2 development (Storch, 2018; Vygotsky, 1978) into consideration since different students may have different ZPD (Aljaafreh & Lantolf, 1994). Notably, ZPD should also be viewed alongside other aspects such as feedback types and context. For example, if a student repeats the same mistake multiple times, it may mean that the learner cannot fully understand why it is incorrect. In this case, teachers can try to provide explicit feedback first, before implementing more implicit one. Additionally, if the focus of the lesson is on fluency, delayed feedback should be preferred. Third, although students at different proficiency levels exhibit similar OCF beliefs, it does not equate with the notion that these beliefs are correct. Instead, teachers can focus on tailored feedback for individual needs. For instance, low-proficiency students may require more immediate and explicit feedback to avoid fossilizing errors, while high-proficiency students might benefit more from implicit feedback to promote autonomy (Ye & Hu, 2024).

Limitations and Recommendations for Future Research

Insightful as it is, the current study is still limited in some ways. The first limitation is that teachers’ beliefs were collected through interviews only with a small number of participants; this might limit the generalizability of the results. Therefore, future studies can generate data from a questionnaire with a larger sample of teachers to assure statistical power. Secondly, although the present study aimed to compare the perspectives of students at different proficiency levels, there was a discrepancy in the participant quantity of HP and LP groups. Size gap can be a confounding factor in data analysis; consequently, it is recommended that future researchers recruit an equal number of participants for different groups. Finally, as Ha, Murray, et al. (2021; Ha, Nguyen, et al., 2021) underscored, the complexity and dynamics of participants’ beliefs cannot be well-grasped through one-shot questionnaires and interviews. Thus, subsequent researchers can employ a longitudinal approach, combined with diary writing and serial follow-up interviews, to comprehensively uncover the dynamism of OCF beliefs.

Conclusion

The current study aimed to examine the perspectives of both EFL teachers and students regarding the significance of OCF and their preferences concerning the timing, error types, and forms of feedback. While both groups of participants expressed favorable attitudes toward OCF efficacy and preferences for delayed feedback, corrections of major and severe errors, and implicit feedback, disparities emerged in relation to error and feedback types. Furthermore, while most previous studies did not take the role of different proficiency levels into account, the present research delved into this topic and found that proficiency levels might not have a significant impact on EFL learners’ OCF beliefs. These insights provide valuable implications for refining OCF practices in EFL settings, emphasizing the importance of considering both teacher and student perspectives in the feedback process. Hopefully, when students’ and teachers’ beliefs are better aligned, the provision of OCF by teachers is more likely to address students’ needs effectively, potentially resulting in greater learning gains.

Footnotes

ORCID iD

Long Quoc Nguyen

Ethical Considerations

All participants voluntarily provided written informed consent to partake in this study. Research approval was granted by FPT University (QĐ669/ĐHFPT).

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Data Availability Statement

Available upon reasonable request.

References

Al-Faki

I. M.

Siddiek

A. G.

(2013). Techniques used by teachers in correcting students’ oral errors in an Omani boys school. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 3(10), 1770–1783. https://doi.org/10.4304/tpls.3.10.1770-1783

Aljaafreh

Lantolf

J. P.

(1994). Negative feedback as regulation: Second language learning in the zone of proximal development. The Modern Language Journal, 78, 465–483. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1994.tb02064.x

Ananda

D. R.

Febriyanti

E. R.

Yamin

Moh.

Mu’in

(2017). Students’ preferences toward oral corrective feedback in speaking class at English department of Lambung Mangkurat University Academic Year 2015/2016. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 7(3), 176. https://doi.org/10.17507/tpls.0703.03

Argüelles

L. G.

Méndez

E. H.

Escudero

M. D. P.

(2019). EFL teachers’ attitudes towards oral corrective feedback: A case study. Profile: Issues in Teachers’ Professional Development, 21(1), 107–120. https://doi.org/10.15446/profile.v21n1.69508

Bao

Wang

(2023). A comparison between the preferences for oral corrective feedback of teachers and students of Chinese as a second language. Frontiers in Psychology, 14, Article 1112136. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1112136

Brown

(2016). The type and linguistic foci of oral corrective feedback in the L2 classroom: A meta-analysis. Language Teaching Research, 20(4), 436–458. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168814563200

Bui

H. P.

T. H.

(2024). Revisiting oral corrective feedback in second language acquisition: Existing debates and directions for further studies. In Bui

P. H.

Bang

T. C.

Nguyen

C. H.

(Eds.), Exploring contemporary English language education practices (pp. 97–115). IGI Global.

Cortazzi

Pilcher

Jin

(2011). Language choices and “blind shadows”: Investigating interviews with Chinese participants. Qualitative Research, 11(5), 505–535. doi:10.1177/1468794111413225

Creswell

J. W.

Creswell

J. D.

(2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (5th ed.). SAGE Publications.

10.

Crosthwaite

Ningrum

Lee

(2022). Research trends in L2 written corrective feedback: A bibliometric analysis of three decades of Scopus-indexed research on L2 WCF. Journal of Second Language Writing, 58, Article 100934. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2022.100934

11.

Duklim

(2023). Students’ preferences regarding the techniques of oral corrective feedback in a tertiary institution. International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research, 22(1), 393–405. https://doi.org/10.26803/ijlter.22.1.22

12.

Ellis

(2008). Learner beliefs and language learning. Asian EFL Journal, 10(4), 7–25.

13.

Ellis

Loewen

Erlam

(2006). Implicit and explicit corrective feedback and the acquisition of L2 grammar. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28(2), 339–368. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263106060141

14.

Gass

Lewis

(2007). Perceptions of interactional feedback: Differences between heritage language learners and non-heritage language learners. In Mackey

(Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition (pp. 79–99). Oxford University Press.

15.

X. V.

(2017). Primary EFL teachers’ oral corrective feedback in Vietnam: Beliefs and practices [Master of Research thesis]. Macquarie University. https://www.researchonline.mq.edu.au/vital/access/manager/Repository/mq:70822

16.

X. V.

(2022a). High school EFL teachers’ oral corrective feedback beliefs and practices, and the effects of lesson focus. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 61(4), 1799–1826. https://doi.org/10.1515/iral-2021-0213.

17.

X. V.

(2022b). Do students’ oral corrective feedback beliefs matter to teachers? ELT Journal, 77(2), 227–236. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccac044

18.

X. V.

Murray

J. C.

(2023). Corrective feedback: Beliefs and practices of Vietnamese primary EFL teachers. Language Teaching Research, 27(1), 137–167. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168820931897

19.

X. V.

Murray

J. C.

Riazi

A. M.

(2021). High school EFL students’ beliefs about oral corrective feedback: The role of gender, motivation and extraversion. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 11(2), 235–264. https://doi.org/10.14746/ssllt.2021.11.2.4

20.

X. V.

Nguyen

T. L.

Bui

P. H.

(2021). Oral corrective feedback in English as a foreign language classrooms: A teaching and learning perspective. Heliyon, 7(7), e07550. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2021.e07550

21.

Irfani

O’Boyle

(2024). Teacher practices and student preferences of oral corrective feedback in Indonesian EFL classrooms: A Vygotskian perspective. Training, Language and Culture, 8(1), 101–114. https://doi.org/10.22363/2521-442X-2024-8-1-101-114

22.

Kartchava

Gatbonton

Ammar

Trofimovich

(2020). Oral corrective feedback: Pre-service English as a second language teachers’ beliefs and practices. Language Teaching Research, 24(2), 220–249. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168818787546

23.

Leontjev

(2016). Exploring and reshaping learners’ beliefs about the usefulness of corrective feedback: A sociocultural perspective. ITL-International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 167(1), 46–77. https://doi.org/10.1075/itl.167.1.03leo

24.

Vouno

(2019). Twenty-five years of research on oral and written corrective feedback in System. System, 84, 93–109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2019.05.006

25.

Zhu

Ellis

(2016). The effects of the timing of corrective feedback on the acquisition of a new linguistic structure. The Modern Language Journal, 100(1), 276–295. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12315

26.

Long

(1991). Focus on form: A design feature in language teaching methodology. In K.

De Bot

Ginsberg

R. B.

Kramsch

(Eds.), Foreign language research in cross-cultural perspective (pp. 39–52). Benjamins.

27.

Long

(1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In Ritchie

W. C.

Bhatia

T. K.

(Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 413–468). Academic Press.

28.

Lyster

Ranta

(1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake: Negotiation of form in communicative classroom. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19(1), 37–66. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263197001034

29.

Lyster

Saito

(2010). Oral feedback in classroom SLA: A meta-analysis. Studies In Second Language Acquisition, 32(2), 265–302. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263109990520

30.

Lyster

Saito

Sato

(2013). Oral corrective feedback in second language classrooms. Language Teaching, 46(1), 1–40. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444812000365

31.

McHugh

M. L.

(2012). Interrater reliability: The Kappa Statistic. Biochemia Medica, 22(3), 276–282.

32.

Muslem

Zulfikar

Astilla

Heriansyah

Marhaban

(2021). Students’ perception toward oral corrective feedback in speaking classes: A case at English education department students. International Journal of Language Education, 5(4), 244–259. https://doi.org/10.26858/ijole.v5i4.19010

33.

Nassaji

(2017). The effectiveness of extensive versus intensive recasts for learning L2 grammar. The Modern Language Journal, 101(2), 353–368. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12387

34.

Nguyen

L. Q.

Dao

Nguyen

B. T. T.

(2024). Model texts as a feedback instrument in second language writing: A systematic review. Language Teaching Research. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/13621688241291336

35.

Nguyen

L. Q.

Vu.

D. V.

(2024). Exploring EFL learners’ engagement and draft quality in a multi-stage expository writing task using model texts as a feedback facilitator: A mixed-methods study. Journal of Second Language Writing, 66, 101161. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2024.101161

36.

Nhac

T. H.

(2022). Oral corrective feedback preferences in English lessons: Learners’ and teachers’ perspectives. European Journal of Educational Research, 11(3), 1643–1655. https://doi.org/10.12973/eu-jer.11.3.1643

37.

Oxford

R. L.

Burry-Stock

J. A.

(1995). Assessing the use of language learning strategies worldwide with the ESL/EFL version of the Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL). System, 23(1), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/0346-251X(94)00047-A

38.

Pallant

(2020). SPSS survival manual: A step by step guide to data analysis using IBM SPSS. McGraw-Hill, Open University Press.

39.

Roothooft

Breeze

(2016). A comparison of EFL teachers’ and students’ attitudes to oral corrective feedback. Language Awareness, 25(4), 318–335. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658416.2016.1235580

40.

Sakiroglu

U. H.

(2020). Oral corrective feedback preferences of university students in English Communication classes. International Journal of Research in Education and Science, 6(1), 172–178. https://doi.org/10.46328/ijres.v6i1.806

41.

Schmidt

(1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11(2), 129–158. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/11.2.129

42.

Schmidt

(2001). Attention. In Robinson

(Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 3–32). Cambridge University Press.

43.

Sheen

Ellis

(2011). Corrective feedback in language teaching. In Hinkle

(Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 593–610). Routledge.

44.

Storch

(2018). Written corrective feedback from sociocultural theoretical perspectives: A research agenda. Language Teaching, 51(2), 262–277. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444818000034

45.

Swain

(1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In Gass

Madden

(Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 235–253). Newbury House.

46.

Swain

(2000). The output hypotheses and beyond: Mediating acquisition through collaborative dialogue. In Lantolf

J. P.

(Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp. 97–114). Oxford University Press.

47.

Tarigan

K. E.

Stevani

Ginting

F. Y. A.

Prayuda

M. S.

Sari

D. W.

Lumbanraja

(2023). Oral corrective feedback and error analysis: Indonesian teachers’ beliefs to improve speaking skill. World Journal of English Language, 13(6), 140. https://doi.org/10.5430/wjel.v13n6p140

48.

Uludağ

(2024). Exploring the relationship between teachers’ beliefs and practices of oral corrective feedback in synchronous computer-mediated communication. Heliyon, 10(4), e29507. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e29507

49.

Uysal

N. D.

Aydin

(2017). Foreign language teachers’ perceptions of error correction in speaking classes: A qualitative study. The Qualitative Report, 22(1), 123–135. http://nsuworks.nova.edu/tqr/vol22/iss1/7

50.

Vygotsky

L. S.

(1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.

51.

Wang

Teo

(2018). Experienced EFL teachers’ beliefs about feedback on student oral presentations. Asian-Pacific Journal of Second and Foreign Language Education, 3, Article 12. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40862-018-0053-3

52.

Weekly

Pollard

Macpherson

(2022). EAP corrective feedback in an EMI setting: Student and teacher beliefs. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 59, Article 101157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2022.101157

53.

(2024). Student and teacher beliefs about oral corrective feedback in junior secondary English classrooms. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1515/iral-2023-0153

54.

(2024). Peer assessment in writing instruction. Cambridge University Press.

55.

Zare

Shooshtari

Z. G.

Jalilifar

(2022). The interplay of oral corrective feedback and l2 willingness to communicate across proficiency levels. Language Teaching Research, 26(6), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168820928967

56.

Zhang

Cao

Zheng

(2022). How learners’ corrective feedback beliefs modulate their oral accuracy: A comparative study on high- and low-accuracy learners of Chinese as a second language. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, Article 869468. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.869468

57.

Zhang

L. J.

Rahimi

(2014). EFL learners’ anxiety level and their beliefs about corrective feedback in oral communication classes. System, 42, 429–439. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2014.01.012

58.

Zhu

Wang

(2019). Investigating English language learners’ beliefs about oral corrective feedback at Chinese universities: A large-scale survey. Language Awareness, 28(2), 139–161. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658416.2019.1620755

EFL Students’ and Teachers’ Beliefs about Oral Corrective Feedback and the Role of Students’ Proficiency Levels

Abstract

Plain Language Summary

Keywords

Introduction

Literature Review

Theoretical Frameworks

Taxonomies of OCF

Empirical Research on L2 Students’ and Teachers’ Beliefs About OCF

OCF’s Efficacy

OCF Timing

Feedback Types

Error Types

The Present Study

Methodology

Research Design

Educational Context and Participants

Instruments

Data Collection Procedure

Data Analysis

Results

Do Vietnamese EFL Learners and Their Teachers View OCF Differently in Terms of Feedback Efficacy, Timing, Error Types, and Feedback Types?

Feedback Efficacy

Feedback Timing

Error Types

Feedback Types

Do Vietnamese EFL Learners at Varying Proficiency Levels View OCF Differently in Terms of Feedback Efficacy, Timing, Error Types, and Feedback Types?

Discussion

Do Vietnamese EFL Learners and Their Teachers View OCF Differently in Terms of Feedback Efficacy, Timing, Error Types, and Feedback Types?

Feedback Efficacy

OCF Timing

Error Types

Feedback Types

Do Vietnamese EFL Learners at Varying Proficiency Levels View OCF Differently in Terms of Feedback Efficacy, Timing, Error Types, and Feedback Types?

Pedagogical Implications

Limitations and Recommendations for Future Research

Conclusion

Footnotes

ORCID iD

Ethical Considerations

Funding

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Data Availability Statement

References